Limit size of cabinet former ministers say

By Jenique Belgrave

A respected political consultant has recommended a cap on the size of the Cabinet but two former ministers on opposing sides of the political divide, Senior Counsel Adriel Brathwaite and current president of the Senate Reginald Farley, are united against such a move.

Brathwaite further suggested that ministers should be subject to frequent reviews – quarterly or annually – to assess their performance in their roles.

Political pollster Peter Wickham on Thursday night suggested to the Parliamentary Reform Commission (PRC) the need for a constitutional limit on the number of ministers appointed by a leader, as is done in the Cayman Islands.

He argued that having a large number of Cabinet ministers hinders the ability of backbenchers to scrutinise the work of the executive.

“My concern is that the tradition in Barbados, as is the case across the Caribbean, is that the size of the Cabinet makes this impractical. So whether it be the current Mia Mottley administration, which has a large Cabinet, or alternatively, the previous Freundel Stuart administration which had effectively included all of the sitting members in the Cabinet, you have a situation where the backbench is unable to supervise effectively the work of the executive,” Wickham said as he raised concerns about the matter virtually at the PRC’s town hall meeting at the Lester Vaughan School.

“The proposal is basically that we look at a constitutional limit on the size of the Cabinet….so that at all points in time, the backbench would cumulatively be able to run an effective check on Parliament in much the same way that it would have been in 1994 when we had effectively a recall of the leadership through Parliament working under scrutiny.”

However, former ministers in the Barbados Labour Party and Democratic Labour Party administrations, Reginald Farley and Senior Counsel Adriel Brathwaite, respectively, expressed opposition to limiting the number of Cabinet ministers.

The two, who were on a panel at the town hall meeting discussing The Role of Ministers and their Relationship with Parliament, made their position clear as they responded to a question posed by PRC member Dr William Chandler Jr. who said that many of the recommendations received from the public were for a constitutional limit to be placed on the number of government ministers who can be appointed.

Farley said there were “practical and pragmatic reasons” why the Constitution should not set a maximum number of Cabinet ministers, including the need for that number to be adjusted depending on the country’s circumstances at the time.

“Legislation is passed at a point in time. You can only see what you can see at that point in time. And I like legislation which allows for the vagaries and the vicissitudes of life. And I think that the ultimate check on the maximum will really be the people. In a sense, governments can do what they consider to be prudent at a point in time, and the public may not share that view and has a way of dealing with what they consider to be imprudent,” he said.

Farley, the current President of the Senate, said that legislation, particularly the Constitution, should not be hard-wired to prevent the administration from having an adequate number of ministers to respond to the issues of the day.

“So, my own view is no, I will not want to have a maximum number. I think the system allows for prudence to be rewarded and imprudence to be punished,” he said.

Acknowledging that similar requests for a limit on Cabinet ministers have also reached the Constitutional Reform Commission, Brathwaite, who is one of its Commissioners, added: “You shouldn’t hamper the ability of the Prime Minister to be reactive in terms of what the country requires at any point in time.”

Responding to Wickham’s point that having too large a Cabinet impacted the work of backbenchers, Brathwaite said there was a way to ensure they played their role.

“There is a school of thought that you can specify the number of ministers that should come from the Senate and in so doing, ensure hopefully, that you will always have a number of backbenchers who, if they take their rules seriously, can act as better interrogators to the minister so that you can have serious question and answer sessions, [because] you have a larger number of backbenchers there who are eager to show that they’re worthy of moving forward,” he explained.

Meanwhile, the former Attorney General suggested that ministers should have their performances assessed at regular intervals, much like bosses in the private sector.

“I believe that the time has come where indeed, whether quarterly or yearly, ministers are subjected by the Prime Minister to a review as would happen if you were chief executive officer of any serious company in Barbados and across the world; a serious 360 review so that you are scrutinised and people have a good sense in terms of your performance,” the panellist said.

He said the current Estimates debate system, where ministers and heads of departments and senior officers give an account of their ministries’ projects and programmes from the well of Parliament, should be modified to a “serious question and answer” session for only the minister to report on what had been achieved during the financial year and to reveal the plans for the next.

“You should be forced, if we are serious about making a difference, to give an account of your stewardship for the year before you can come to ask for monies again for the following year,” Brathwaite said.

“These are things that I’m serious about in terms of how we can improve our democratic processes and how we can improve accountability to Parliament. It should not be a case where, because you’re a minister, every year you come and submit your budget and away it goes. We all know that you probably do about three or four heads during the course of the week, and lots of ministries are not touched and debated in terms of their policies and initiatives, etc. So some mechanism must be put in place for that,” he contended.

The attorney-at-law also expressed concern that ministers were not trained before being assigned to lead a ministry.

He said this must be addressed within the reform process.

“Being a Cabinet minister is a very curious job because it’s the first job that you are the head of an organisation, you are a chief executive officer and there is no training provided. You turn up, you are appointed, and you become a chief executive officer. And I believe that’s one of the areas where we can start again to reform, that we can ensure that persons who aspire for political office, opportunities are made available to them,” Brathwaite said.

“For example, one thing that can be done is that if you have an opposition party or any political party that has an interest in getting into government, they can appoint a shadow cabinet and ensure that those persons who aspire for political office can receive the requisite training so that if and when there is a transition, the learning curve is reduced significantly.”

Former Minister of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade Maxine Mcclean who attended the town hall meeting noted that, unlike some jurisdictions, there was no handbook to provide guidance for new ministers when they took up their posts.

“When I have reviewed handbooks such as that of Australia and some other countries, it is a very comprehensive document. We don’t have handbooks of those types, and so that clearly is something which can be very useful beyond any orientation – short documents to support and give some explanations of what you do,” she said.

jeniquebelgrave@barbadostoday.bb